From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

An interesting article in an old New Scientist. I can remember arguing
the case with Gareth (whether before or after his apostasy I cannot
reall) and he argued that humanism was just as ethical as Christianity,
if not more so.

=============
Today there are three influential and competing definitions [of what it
means to be human]. The first is the Christian theological view that
humans are made in the image of God. The second is a more philosophical position that defines humans as possessing certain capacities, such as self-consciousness and rationality. Finally, there is the biological
view, where humans are defined - and differentiated from animals - by
their DNA.
New Scientist 06-08-2016 p. 32

I examined public attitudes among a representative survey of more than
3500 adults in the US. I started by asking people how much they agreed
with very strict versions of the three definitions of a human. I also
asked them how much they agreed with four statements about humans: that
they are like machines; special compared with animals; unique; and all
of equal value. These questions were designed to assess whether any of
the three competing definitions are asociated with ideas that could have
a negative effect on how we treat one another.

I finished with a series of direct queustions about human rights:
whether we should risk soldiers to stop a genocide in a foreign country;
be allowed to buy kidneys from poor people; have terminally ill people
die by suicide to save money; take blood from prisoners without their
consent; or torture terror suspects to potentially save lives.

What came out was very striking. The more a respondent agreed with the biological definiton of a human, the more likely they were to see humans
as being like machines and the less likely they were to see them as
special, unique or all of equal value. On the human rights questions,
they were less willing to stop genocides and were more likely to accept
buying kidneys, suicide to save money and taking blood from prisoners.

In contrast, those who agreed with the theological view were less likely
to agree with suicide to save money and taking blood from prisoners
against their will.

Shockingly, then, the critics appear to be right. People who agree with
the biological definition of a human are also more likely to hold views inconsistent with human rights.
New Scientist 06-08-2016 p. 33
=============

The author's solution? Get people like Richard Dawkins to speak more
about human rights and that humans are sacred, which is rather fatuous
if the problem lies in the definition. It would be about as effective as urging people to believe that 2+2=5 - the result does not spring from
(and may be contradicted by) the premises.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2